MOHINDER PAL, J.

All these matters are taken up together having common question regarding liability of the Insurance Company when gratuitous passengers are travelling in goods carriage vehicles dies or sustains injuries in an accident.

2. Earlier, Mr. P.K. Handa, learned Counsel has been appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, he is stated to have expired. Ms. Sunita S. Chaturvedi learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondents in First Appeal No. 1622 of 2001 and First Appeal No. 1628 of 2001. The arguments on behalf of respondents in all the cases will be similar. In order to avoid other petitions go unrepresented, Ms. Sunita S. Chaturvedi learned Counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of all respondents in this group of appeals.

3. These appeals have been preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Vadodara on 16-9-2000 in M.A.C. Petition Nos. 719 of 1989 along with allied petitions, wherein, appellant-Insurance Company has been jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation on account of death and injuries sustained in an accident which took place on 20-5-1989 at about 5-45 a.m. in between Bhumaswada and Bediya Road, Near Rumadiya Village. In this accident, six persons died, while others sustained serious injuries.

4. The Tribunal recorded the finding in separate claim petitions and finally concluded that provisions of Sec. 147 of the New Act will be applicable, and accordingly, held Insurance Company liable to indemnify and ultimately to pay the compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved from this decision, the present appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company.

5. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the findings of the Tribunal by holding that new provisions of Sec. 147 of the M.V. Act will be applicable in this case are erroneous, as the accident in question has taken place on 20-5-1989, when M.V. Act of 1939 was applicable, whereas, the new Act came into force on 1-7-1989. As the accident has taken place on 20-5-1989, the old Act will be applicable in this case. He has further raised arguments regarding liability of the Insurance Company. It has been argued that as per the averments of the claimants, it has been admitted that the passengers travelling in the Truck were gratuitous passengers and had paid fare for travelling in the Truck. They were not owners of the goods and in absence of any connection with the goods, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle in question was insured as goods carriage vehicle which was not authorized to carry the passengers. He has also referred to the old provisions of the Act and has submitted that even otherwise as per provisions contained in the Act of 1939, the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle were not covered to be paid compensation by the Insurance Company in the case of accidents.

6. The arguments raised by the learned Counsel are controverted by Ms. Chaturvedi learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the ground that even if vehicle was insured as goods carriage vehicle, the deceased as well as injured passengers travelling in such vehicle were entitled to the compensation. The Insurance Company can pay the same, and thereafter, recover it from the owner and driver of the Truck.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. From perusal of Para 2 of the judgment of the Tribunal, it has been stated that all the victims including six deceased were occupying their seats in the offending Truck bearing Registration No. GTB-6367 either in the capacity of labourers or in the capacity of the fare-paying passengers along with their goods. From the own admission of the respondents, it is clear that they were gratuitous passengers.

8. Learned Counsel Mr. Nanavati for the appellant-Insurance Company has referred to the provisions contai